Perioperative complications following preoperative cessation of antithrombotic agents for total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective study

Is hip fracture surgery safe for patients on antiplatelet drugs and is it necessary to delay surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Hip fractures are common and account for a large proportion of orthopedic surgical admissions in elderly patients. However, determining the timing for surgery has been controversial for patients who develop hip fractures while on antiplatelet treatment.

Methods

Computerized databases for studies published from the inception date to January 2020, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Web of Science^TM, ClinicalTrials, ClinicalKey, and Google Scholar, were searched using the keywords “Hip AND Fracture”, “Antiplatelet”, “Antithrombocyte”, “Platelet aggregation inhibitors”, “Aspirin”, “Plavix”, and “Clopidogrel”.

Results

In total, 2328 initial articles were identified. Twenty-four studies with 5423 participants were ultimately included in our analysis. Early surgery was associated with an increased transfusion rate in the antiplatelet group compared to the non-antiplatelet group (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.44; p = 0.03). Early surgery for hip fracture patients on antiplatelet therapy was associated with a greater decrease in hemoglobin compared to delayed surgery (WMD = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.00; p < 0.001). However, early surgery appeared to decrease the length of hospitalization (WMD = − 6.05; 95% CI, − 7.06 to − 5.04; p < 0.001) and mortality (OR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.79; p = 0.006).

Conclusion

It is unnecessary to delay surgery to restore platelet function when patients with hip fractures receive antiplatelet therapy. Furthermore, early surgery can significantly reduce mortality and hospital stay, which is conducive to patient recovery. Future randomized trials should determine whether the results are sustained over time.

Risky business? Investigating outcomes of patients undergoing urgent laparoscopic appendectomy on antithrombotic therapy

INTRODUCTION

The literature regarding outcomes in patients on irreversible antithrombotic therapy (IAT) undergoing urgent laparoscopic appendectomy is limited. The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to examine the impact of prehospital IAT on outcomes in this population.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2014, seven institutions from the Southwest Surgical Multicenter Trials (SWSC MCT) group conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the clinical course of all patients on IAT who underwent urgent/emergent laparoscopic appendectomy. The IAT+ group was subdivided into IAT+ (Aspirin only) and IAT+ (Aspirin-Plavix). These groups were matched 1:1 to controls. The primary outcomes were estimated blood loss (EBL) and transfusion requirement. Secondary outcomes included infections (SSI - Surgical Site Infection, DSI - Deep Space Infection, and OSI - Organ Space Infection), hospital length of stay (HLOS), complications, 30-day readmissions, and mortality.

RESULTS

Out of the 2903 patients included in the study, 287 IAT+ patients were identified and matched in a 1:1 ratio to 287 IAT-patients. In the IAT+ vs IAT-analysis, no significant differences in EBL (p = 1.0), transfusion requirement during the preoperative (p = 0.5), intraoperative (p = 0.3) or postoperative periods (p = 0.5), infectious complications (SSI; p = 1.0, DSI; p = 1.0, and OSI; p = 0.1), overall complications (p = 0.3), HLOS (p = 0.7), 30-day readmission (p = 0.3), or mortality (p = 0.1) were noted. Similarly, outcomes in the IAT+ (Aspirin only) and IAT+ (Aspirin-Plavix) subgroups failed to demonstrate any significant differences when compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that IAT is not associated with worse outcomes in urgent/emergent laparoscopic appendectomy. Prehospital use of IAT should not be used to delay laparoscopic appendectomy.